It was always going to divide fans and critics alike, but viewing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in its native 48-frames-per-second format has left a sour taste in critics' mouths.

The length and pacing has been labelled "tedious" and "flat-footed" by Hollywood Reporter critic Todd McCarthy, who isn't alone in his views.

"This may be one venture where," McCarthy writes, "rather than DVDs offering an 'Expanded Director's Version,' there might be an appetite for a 'Condensed Director's Cut' in a single normal-length film."

It sounds like a classic case of "too much of a good thing". In trying to be as faithful to JRR Tolkein's fantasy novel as possible, director Peter Jackson may have ruined the pacing.

Touted by Peter as the future of filmmaking, the 48-frames-per-second screenings of The Hobbit also came under fire.

Variety's Peter DeBruge writes: "Everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end home movie."

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Peter Jackson, maintains that the added smoothness is "something that becomes a real joy to watch, but it takes you a while."

It's a good thing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey's running time is a whopping 166 minutes, eh Pete?

How do you feel about The Hobbit? Do you have the patience to sit through a film that long?